Complete loops and chicken poop

 

I love interlocked systems. Complete—if complex—loops. When the effluents provide the materials necessary to produce the influents. Chickens, I'm finding, are great at that. You can buy feed for them, and they produce eggs, and poop. So you can buy chips to put down in their coop, and then rake up the poop/chips frequently. And your food scraps can go in the trash—and everything is a broken loop. Or you can save your food scraps (and your neighbors' food scraps) and feed them to the chickens; and they'll produce eggs and poop; and you can mulch your leaves (and your neighbors' leaves) and put it down in their pen. And keep adding it until you've got a nice deep litter of living organisms, essentially turning the floor of the pen into a compost pile. Now the poop isn't a problem to be dealt with; but a useful product they give you. 

They tie back into other aspects of the property: we've got enough trees that we need to take one down about once a year to keep them from threatening neighbors property or the house. So I could pay someone to haul off the wood for me. Or I could burn the wood, not need a gym membership as I get a work out cutting wood; then not pay to heat the house. Interestingly, the ashes produced in this process are a great source of carbon, and can be collected when they cool and put in the chicken coop (they are most abundant in the winter when the leaves are no longer available as bedding), and they keep the composting process trucking along. I'm experimenting this year with swiping the neighbors' bagged leaves (with their permission) and storing them in the back woods where I used to haul off my leaves. The bags seem to be keeping up through several significant rains now: they seem to shed most of the water and, since they aren't fully water or air tight, they seem to allow the leaves to dry out from any dampness that's gotten in when the rain stops. Once I've dealt with all my leaves by mulching them and adding them to the coop I'll drag out out a few of the neighbors' leaf bags anytime the coop starts smelling like it needs a bit more carbon (i.e. starts smelling like ammonia) and mulch them up and add them in. 

Back to the feed comment: I have not cut out the need to buy feed. But saving my food scraps, and giving them food scraps from friends and neighbors, and giving them limited free ranging time, and throwing all the weeds, grass clippings (thanks neighbors!), and whatever other organic matter I can find into the coop does significantly cut down on the amount of feed I have to buy. I'm hoping to grow more things specifically as chicken feed next season and that will further cut down on the still-slightly-open-loop on the feed side.  

Revelation resources

I was lamenting that I've become pretty infrequent in my posting; but also reflected that a 'sub-category' of this blog has become what I might call "pastoral advice" as it's advice on how to interact with various portions of Scripture—situational correspondence that I realized might have more general usefulness. So I've decided to just embrace that! Here's some thoughts on resources for the book of Revelation:

Revelation is one of the trickiest books to approach because of how many ways Christians have interpreted it, and because of the way Dispensationalism has cast a long shadow over modern interpretation among evangelicals. 

Here's a paper I wrote in seminary where I exegete Rev 20:1-6 because most of the differences of interpretation come down to what you do with the millennium described there. 

You may or may not be familiar with the idea that there are 3 basic "camps" of interpretation. These camps are basically answering the question, "does Jesus come back..." before the millennium in Revelation 20 ("Pre-mil"); without reference to a specific millennium ("A-mil"); or after the millennium ("Post-mil"). 

But what is probably the stronger division is between Dispensational interpreters on the one side and the historic pre-mil, a-mil and post-mil interpreters on the other, because the Dispensational camp started straying into some places that did violence to how you interpret the rest of Scripture,* demands we see the modern secular state of Israel as having eternal significance, and requires us to see God saving people by different means: the Jews by the law in the old dispensation (and for many still the Jews by the law today); Christians by grace in the new dispensation. 

Modern exegetes who have sought to remain faithful to the Scripture while remaining within the Dispensational tradition have developed "neo-Dispensationalism" which is basically the historic pre-mil position. 

Pastors and Elders in the PCA can subscribe to any of the three historic views, but because of the departure from good exegesis required by Dispensationalism that view is 'out of bounds.' Of course, PCA members may believe whatever their consciences lead them to, but we urge everyone to conform their belief to the Scriptures. 

Unfortunately I don't have a great 'Bible study-type' recommendation as the controversies that have grown up around Revelation are so big it tends to take pretty heavy-hitting academic treatment to deal with all the things floating out there in the ether... G.K Beal has written the definitive and masterful commentary which I find most helpful (and used when I preached a sermon series on Revelation back in IL) but it's also over a thousand pages and goes into detail only a person writing a book on Revelation would need to get into. He has also written a much more accessible commentary I'd recommend. There's a good, short book that presents the 4 views called The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views by George Ladd. I have also used and appreciated a few other commentaries I'll note: J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation (it's hard to plott Michaels on the spectrum of millennial views); Simon J Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (a-mil); and Robert Murray M'Cheyne, The Seven Churches of Asia (just deals with the first chapters addressed to the churches).

*This is an odd development because most people who are in the Dispensational camp are firmly committed to understanding the Bible as the reliable and trustworthy Word of God. The difficulty is that simplistic engagement with the doctrine of Scripture led people to think everything must be taken "literally." This was because revisionist exegetes in the late 1800s (in the English-speaking world) began questioning whether miracles and many essential aspects of the doctrine of Christ—including the resurrection—needed to be taken literally, despite the Biblical texts very clearly presenting these things as literal events. The concern to stand for literal interpretation, when applied simplistically, led people to interpret figurative texts as necessarily literal. It was no longer up to the biblical author whether the text was figurative or literal: everything had to be taken literally. But with vision narratives that is hugely problematic, and leads to some significant inconsistencies. For example, when Joseph or Daniel give interpretation of rulers' dreams, should we accuse them of revisionism for saying what the meaning behind fat cows and thin cows means? Trying to force a literal read onto figurative material also causes modern interpreters into some strange linguistic gymnastics, like the common interpretation among contemporary Dispensationalists that the grasshoppers in John's vision are really what contemporary military attack helicopters would look like to a first century person! So now we have John describing 20th/21st century military gear, but not being intelligent enough to know it's large flying machines, not grasshoppers. And that would imply that the literal word 'grasshopper' in the sacred text of Holy Scripture is, in fact, a mistake!

"Developments" in Campus Security

 I got to spend some time several months ago on the campus of my now-alma mater, Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. I must say I did not feel very welcome. This is not a slight to Concordia in any specific way; I think it's how I'd feel on most academic campuses in the US (it is how I've experienced getting around when I visit my undergrad alma mater, Covenant College for a number of years now). Even though I'm a student of this organization, and was issued a visitor key card when I arrived, every door I encountered was locked, and I have yet to find one that my key card worked on. I don't think that experience is entirely due to my visitor status. Students I have interacted with seem unsure when and where their cards will work, and it seems from comments made by the graduation ceremony marshals that dealing with unreliably locked doors is just a continuous part of campus life.

This has gotten me thinking about the problem of campus security that we're trying to solve, and whether or not our new measures are solving that problem, or making it worse. So I'd like to explore a few scenarios, set on the same campus; one in, say, 2012, and one in 2022. All the locked doors on a contemporary campus are, I believe, supposed to make students safer from predatory intruders. So lets picture a scenario in about 2012, when most of the external doors on a campus are unlocked for most of the time—maybe they switch from unlocked to locked 11pm-7am and only the front door to each dorm can be opened by your dorm key during that window (like Covenant College did in the '90s). Most of the dorm rooms from sometime in the '80s on default to locked, and a lot of students use little blocks of wood to keep them from closing/locking because they find the convenience of not being constantly locked out worth the risk their door being unlocked poses. I think we're afraid that an intruder is going to get into a dorm and assault a student with the scenario we find between the 1980s and early 2010s. So let's play that out: the intruder gets through an exterior door during "unlocked hours" and poses as a normal student in common areas until after lights out, then either takes advantage of someone leaving their dorm room door propped open, or surprises a student getting up to use the bathroom. It seems that this scenario gets shut down pretty quickly by the student calling for help, or by someone recognizing that the intruder isn't in fact a student while they're trying to single out a victim. 

Now let's move the scenario up to the present day: all doors—dorm room, exterior, etc.—are fitted with card locks and without the card you can't access anything on campus—can't enter the library, the cafeteria, the administrative offices, the dorm buildings, etc. Let's assume that everything is working properly as it's designed with no hiccups (I'm being very generous here, because it appears that hiccups are the norm, not the exception): a student's key card will always give them access to their dormitory and their individual dorm room, will give them access to library, administrative offices and cafeteria during business hours, etc. So now, an intruder arrives on campus looking for a victim. Let's also assume they don't find any doors that students, faculty or staff have braced open because they find that constantly being locked out is annoying. Now a student moving across campus who gets targeted by this intruder will most likely find every door they run to to get away—library, offices, gym, other dorms—just as locked to them as to the intruder. Unless they happen to be near their own dorm, their campus has become a trap for them. I think we can see that in these two scenarios, being generous, at best the odds are fifty-fifty whether the student in 2022 is any safer than the student in 2012. 

But I think there's a bigger problem, and a greater safety threat posed in the 2022 scenario than the situation in 2012. The very technology we have decided is going to be the final solution is breaking down the community bonds that used to offer a certain level of security. Every locked door severs a small community bond that used to surround the student with relationships (not deep, meaningful, soul-mate relationships—just people you recognize on sight, generally trust as another member of your community, and would expect to respond if you called out to them). What is breaking down is in part the phenomenon Jane Jacobs called "eyes on the street"—the reality that where there are people who see things there is greater safety. We're trying to substitute technology for relationship when we were both designed and evolved to depend on relationship. 

Reconciling Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the suicide of Judas Iscariot

The suicide of Judas Iscariot is described twice in the New Testament and the two accounts seem to be offering two different ways Judas died: one by hanging and one by falling. So the question is are the two accounts reconcilable? If so it's not an affront to the idea that God inspired both of them. If not it's a problem for both being inspired. 

 

So, to look at the two stories: The hanging account is in Matthew 27:5: "And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself." The falling account is Acts 1:18: "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." 

 

On the surface it appears that one is hanging, one is falling to die on impact. But neither account is particularly detailed. The hanging account doesn't say, for example, he went into a room, got up on a stool, tied himself to a rafter and kicked the stool over. That would make an account that said he went up on a cliff and jumped off clearly incompatible. But the falling account isn't that detailed either. It doesn't even say specifically that he died in the field he purchased (though you could argue it's implied). 

 

I think there's a variety of ways that the accounts can be reconciled: Judas tying his rope to something that broke, causing him to fall a long way; jumping from too high a point when hanging himself so he gets decapitated and falls and "bursts;" hanging himself ("falling headlong") and then being left so long his body swells and bursts from decomposition (which seems shameful: no one cares about him enough to find him so the body just hangs in its owner's new field until it rots). 

 

So I think if we're careful not to import too much assumption into our reading of either account we can see that there are numerous scenarios that could be accurately described with both statements without either one suffering.

Then we get into, "yeah, but are those as likely as the idea that there are just two conflicting stories?" Well, taken by themselves, I wouldn't jump to a complex scenario from either story. But then we do have two stories--even without a doctrine of inspiration we should ask, "is it necessary to assume one of the accounts is mistaken, or would we assume we're getting more details from two accounts?" If I'm just considering two historical documents, of course I could just say one must be mistaken, but that's not really good historical work if it's not necessary from the accounts that they are mutually exclusive. If I have reports of a battle from two Roman commanders that seem to have conflicts, but on analysis could be reconciled, I would just assume that I'm getting a fuller picture of naturally complex historical realities by having more accounts to work from. 

This is violating the common maxim that the simplest answer is likely the most accurate. But that maxim doesn't really apply to the discipline of history where the more accurate maxim is that "History is Messy" (i.e. complex). Usually the most accurate understanding of any historical circumstance is a highly nuanced and complex picture made up of multitudes of factors. Unless there's some demonstrable reason to believe that one or the other source is untrustworthy, or has an "angle" that would benefit from their version excluding another, we're probably best accepting the more complex picture reconciled from multiple sources. I don't really see any advantage to Matthew or Luke (the author of Acts) to favor falling versus hanging. One means of death versus another doesn't add anything to either author's larger story--the primary point for both seems to be that Judas committed suicide, not that the specific means of his death proved something or enhanced some other point.

This gets to a question of source reliability. This is illustrated in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe by Professor Digory Kirke's question to Peter and Susan (the older two siblings) about the reliability of their younger siblings when the youngest discovers a portal to the fantastic realm of Narnia: Lucy, the younger girl, has a story of finding another world through a portal and Edmund (the younger boy) says it's a made up game. Peter and Susan are troubled because obviously it's a lie--there can't be portals to fantastic worlds. But the professor asks, "is it usual that the girl is less honest than the boy?" They reply that Edmund is a known liar and that Lucy is very honest. So the Professor asks why they are sticking by their (what we might call a "negative evidence"-based, or argument from silence) presupposition that there can't be a portal, rather than their (positive evidence-based) presupposition that Lucy is honest. 

 If we generally find Matthew and Luke to be honest reporters, and they have an apparent conflict that, on analysis, can be reconciled, it actually makes more sense to assume the reconciled picture is the more full picture of the actual historical event and dismiss our assumptions about rafters and cliffs.

Woah! What happened to 2020?!

The last time I posted was September of 2019? What happened? Well, in addition to all the things that happened to all of us in 2020 (pandemic, racial injustice and tension, political conflict, etc.), I pastored our church plant through its launch (which included changing worship locations seven times in its first 7 months of existence!), continued rehabbing our house and apartments, and wrote a little less than half of my dissertation. So it was a busy year. But I'll hope for a little more activity here in 2021!

Resurrection discrepancies in the four Gospels?

I was talking with a friend recently about how the accounts of the resurrection of Christ in the four Gospels seem to differ. I spent some time looking into the question and thought I'd put my results here. First, I laid out the accounts in parallel (see below), and used same colors to highlight like events across the accounts (for e.g. I've used navy blue to highlight Jesus' giving up His spirit across all four accounts even though it's the first thing in Mt, Mk, Jn and 2nd in Lk). Comparing the four accounts this way, it seems to me there's two problems to address: (1) differences in what actually happened at Jesus' death, the other (2) is the order of events when the Resurrection is discovered.

On (1) the death, note that the problem isn't direct conflicts (apart from what the centurion says - “this was the Son of God” [Mt/Mk] or “This man was innocent” [Lk], and here, he could easily have said both. The “son of God” statement means more to the reader than it would have to the Centurion: he probably wasn't saying “I believe the yet-to-be-articulated doctrine of the Trinity!” He was probably saying, “I believe what this man said about himself”; and remember he was probably speaking in Latin [as a Roman] or Aramaic [as a resident of Palestine], depending on his nationality, while the story is being written in Greek, so exact words of dialogue aren't going to translate), but things not reported: Matthew is most dramatic/supernatural with the temple curtain tearing (like Mk/Lk), a rock-splitting earthquake, and mini-resurrections. Luke is next most dramatic with three hours of darkness prior to the curtain tearing, and the crowd viewing a “spectacle” that causes them to beat their breasts (but he doesn't fill in what caused the awed reaction) then Mark just reports the curtain, and John doesn't even do that. That's where I get back to the point that the authors aren't just recording the story, but making specific points. John is very concerned with demonstrating how in control of the process Jesus was and how in accord with Old Testament prophecy He unfolded the story. Since Jesus wasn't the one darkening the sun and was actually dead at the moment of the earthquake/mini-resurrections, and since those things aren't prophesied in OT, John isn't concerned with reporting them—he's just moving on to reporting the next things that fulfill OT prediction.

The eyewitnesses to the events didn't perceive conflicts—and most of the authors themselves were writing with the other authors before them and wouldn't have written in conflicts (unless they were “correcting the record” – but they weren't received as correcting the record so much as affirming the record). Matthew (written late 50s/early 60s) and Luke (written mid-60s) used Mark (written in early 50s) as a source: they didn't contradict but added details. Matthew was an eyewitness—maybe in the power of the event he didn't pay attention to the lighting (or maybe in comparison to the earthquake and mini-resurrections he didn't bother to mention it). Luke was interviewing eyewitnesses: maybe Luke's witnesses didn't mention the earthquake and mini-resurrections. John was the latest (sometime between 70 & 100) and had access to the others—and they were all accepted as accurate and authentic by the Church as they were received, so he's clearly not going to offer a counter without saying he's doing so, and it being noticed that he's doing so. So even if we perceive differences, we'd need to try and put ourselves in the position of an original audience member and try to figure out why they didn't perceive discrepancies or perceive the accounts as differing.

With that in mind, we're turning to the 4 accounts saying “what could have happened that could be accurately described by all of these accounts?” (bearing in mind too that this question is more about satisfying our concerns about authenticity, not about correct interpretation: in interpretation the text has authority, so meaning is not in reconstructing the specifics of the event, but in understanding the point being made in the telling—believing the telling is an accurate representation of the event).

So I'll try to put together a timeline of the discovery of the Resurrection that makes sense of the four accounts. In the columns above I noted that Matthew includes a whole story line the other authors ignore: the input from the soldiers. I have shown this story line in blue. If we understand this storyline as information from the guards, not from the women, it does much to resolve apparent discrepancies: Mt 27:62-66 sets up the story, 28:1 is an interlude getting the women to the tomb, and then 28:2-4 describes what happened prior to the women's arrival to explain the scene they encounter when they arrive. So the first thing to happen, coming from a soldier's account (probably confided secretly since he was payed to say something else: Mt 28:13-15) is the earthquake when the angel of the Lord descends to open the tomb. The guards feint. Then Mary Madeline and several women come in the dark, toward dawn (Mt 28:1, Mk 16:1-3, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1), find the empty tomb, and go to tell the apostles (we might note here that probably it's just Mary that goes to tell the apostles [Jn 20:2] while the others do nothing [Mk 16:8]); two of whom go to check out their story (Jn 20:2-10, Lk 24:12). Mary and other women return to the tomb and encounter two angels (Mt 28:5-7, Mk 16:5-8, Lk 24:4-8, Jn 20:11-13). Jesus reveals Himself to Mary and the women (Mt 28:9-10, Mk 16:9, Jn 20:14-17), and the women go to tell the disciples not just that the tomb is open and Jesus is gone, but that He has risen (Mt 28:8, Mk 16:10-11, Lk 24:9-11, Jn 20:18). This would mean that Luke conflates the complex activity related in John, probably because he had more limited sources (John was one of the two who respond to Mary's call in 20:2-10; Luke appears to have been relating info from Peter in in 24:12. He's telling the short version, and John comes along a number of years later and fills out details from his own experience.

Matthew 27/28: 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. 51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” 55 There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. 57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. 62 Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 64 Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard. 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” 11 While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

Mark 15/16: 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” 40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 When he was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him, and there were also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. 42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. 45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph. 46 And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. 16:1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back— it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. 9 [[Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

Luke 23/24: 44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. 47 Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent!” 48 And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. 49 And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things. 50 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid. 54 It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. 55 The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. 56 Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. 24:1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. 5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” 8 And they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, 11 but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.

John 19/20: 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.” 38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. 39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. 4 Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went back to their homes. John 20:11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her.

Response: Emerson W. Baker, The Devil of Great Island: Witchcraft & Conflict in Early New England

I just finished Emerson Baker's The Devil of Great Island: Witchcraft & Conflict in Early New England. (The funny backstory to this is that I didn't come across it through dissertation research; rather Ellie [9 years old] figured out how to do keyword searches using our public library's catalog and, wanting to find a book to check out for me, searched for "seventeenth century New England"!)

It's an enjoyable deep-dive look into life in the community of Great Island, NH during the latter half of the seventeenth century, and centers on an incident of "lithobolia" (supernatural flying stones and other inanimate objects, usually centering on an individual or place, and attributed to witchcraft) which happened over the course of several months in 1682.

Tavern owner George Walton is caught in a horizontal hail of rocks with no apparent source one summer evening outside his tavern. He flees inside and the rocks continue to pelt the tavern; then objects within the tavern begin flying around, injuring occupants and breaking windows from the inside. The incident was reported by George and his family and guests, and recorded--and published--by a minister who observed the event while staying in the tavern as a guest. The strange occurrence continued intermittently for months, centered on George himself, and happening to him miles up river in some cases. George eventually accused his widowed neighbor of witchcraft, but she was not ultimately charged.

Baker writes well, and tells a story well. Despite the fact that his sources are primarily court records of lawsuits between early inhabitants and archaic land deeds the story he tells is quite engaging. He also uncovers the surprising interconnectedness of the subjects of the story. What starts out as a seemingly open and shut case of a supernatural happening (wait a minute...) turns out to have all sorts of family and neighborly land feuds and legal maneuvering, far-reaching political schemes, religious arguments and economic ties going on beneath the surface.

It turns out that the widowed neighbor had been involved in a land dispute with George that had raged through numerous lawsuits for years. Not only that George was embroiled in constant lawsuits with his neighbors over land disputes and was constantly in court. In many of these conflicts it was clear that George was willing to become involved in some rather underhanded dealings. Also he was a Quaker in an increasingly Puritan colony where one could be convicted of holding deviant religious beliefs. In fact, he was hosting a gathering of leading Quaker "subversives" from across the North American colonies in his tavern on the evening the lithobolia started. And he was a supporter of an highly placed Anglican noble who had been fighting to make money off his claims to the colony of New Hampshire by inserting his own governors and judges to force colonists to pay him for their land claims. There was good reason for George Walton to be the target of his neighbors' dislike--and perhaps even violent attacks--on a number of levels.

My concerns with Baker's tale are twofold. First, despite setting up the lithobolia episodes as a strange, potentially supernatural phenomenon from multiple period (and first person) sources, his investigation never loops back to explain these sources in light of all the conflict going on beneath the surface. George's neighbors and servants may have had many reasons to throw rocks at him. The problem is that none of the original sources suggest that his neighbors were throwing rocks at him! Baker makes a very convincing case that the Waltons were difficult neighbors who could well have garnered the enmity of their community and were likely to be the recipients of violent attacks. But the sources present what happened at the Walton's tavern as inexplicable by natural causes. The distance of the tavern from cover where attackers could have hidden is specifically noted as too great for rocks to be thrown. The movement of objects inside the tavern is not explained away by noting that the Walton's had dubious relationships with their indentured servants. If what was really happening was that George's neighbors and servants were teaming up to throw rocks at him, why do multiple eyewitnesses (guests at the inn, servants, family members, neighbors, George himself) present the incidents as inexplicable? Why wouldn't George, who was clearly willing to take legal and even physical action against his neighbors when he couldn't get along with them, just bring accusations of stone-throwing to the magistrates, or start throwing stones himself, rather than accusing his neighbor of witchcraft? If neighbors were standing in the yard pelting the inn and disgruntled servants were throwing fire irons around inside, why did guest and family accounts say that stones and objects moved on their own? To prove that many people have many legitimate grievances against the Waltons does not prove that those people entered into a conspiracy to pull of a community-wide hoax, that would seem to even need to include George playing along and ignoring his human tormentors to claim supernatural attacks. Particularly when pinning the supernatural attacks on one neighbor would not fix all George's legal problems, nor avenge him against the multiple neighbors he had grievances with. Accusing those neighbors of actual physical assaults would have gotten George much further legally. Most of the assaults were witnessed by parties that would have either been disinterested--or even supporters of the Waltons. To assume the attacks are easily explicable incidents of neighbors throwing rocks requires that we assume the Waltons and their witnesses were willing to participate in the hoax and claim supernatural causes. It seems unlikely that royal officials and Quaker visitors would willingly put their names to far-fetched claims, particularly when the legal advantage of doing so was less than the legal advantage of just accusing the rock-throwers. Barker assumes the impossibility of a para-normal explanation, and his investigation falls into unscientific assumptions as a result.

Let me be clear: I have no predisposition to assuming there must be a supernatural answer to the lithobolia incident at Great Island. In most instances of paranormal events I find that a careful enough examination of the situation reveals a hoax, or a natural phenomenon that has been perceived as supernatural. But to investigate with the
It doesn't offer sufficient explanation unless you assume to start with that a paranormal explanation is not possible.

This unscientific rejection of a phenomenon just because it is outside our own experience gets at my second objection, which is a historical context problem. Baker assumes--and trumps up the whole incident to--the backwardness of pre-modernist New England. It's like he's saying 'these are a bunch of easily fooled, superstitious bumpkins; the self-serving or superstitious explanations were readily accepted because of the superstition and darkness of the cultural context.'

If this is an accurate picture, why were there so few witch executions in New England, as compared to certain Swiss villages left bereft of women by the witch hunts, or sixty thousand executions in Europe between 1450-1750 (which Baker actually notes)
? Out of 344 accusations of witchcraft in New England between 1620-1725, 185 occurred in relation to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692-93 which resulted in 20 executions (pp. 86-87). While that is 20 executions too many, in a world that was still very actively pursuing and executing witches, the 'backward,' 'superstitious' New Englanders managed to get away with only 344 accusations, far fewer convictions, and only a score of executions. Rather than bemoan the backwardness of the seventeenth-century New Englanders we might rather celebrate that their system seemed to be outstripping the mother continent's when it came to protecting the innocent from spurious charges.

While Baker marshals an impressive amount of backstory and paints a very vivid picture of life in seventeenth-century New England--a picture which shows a remarkable degree of sophistication and complexity--I do not believe he has solved the mystery of Great Island as thoroughly as his conclusion seems to indicate. While I do not believe there need be a supernatural explanation, I also think it need not be dismissed out of hand. Nor to I think the evidence of community strife--which would certainly provide a motive for the attacks--is sufficient in itself to overcome the realities of the attack which must necessarily be addressed to consider the mystery "solved."